Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > March 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16744 March 31, 1965 - SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN v. MATEO M. CANONOY, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16744. March 31, 1965.]

SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN, Petitioner, v. MATEO M. CANONOY, as presiding Judge of Branch III, 14th Judicial District and ANDREA SALUD, Respondents.

Valeriano S. Carillo for Petitioner.

Melquiades S. Canmeran for Respondent Andrea Salud.

Judge Mateo Canonoy for and in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT; JURISDICTION OF COURT TO GRANT RELIEF IN RESOLVING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH FINAL JUDGMENT. — It is within the authority of a court in resolving a motion for contempt, to grant such relief therein as may be necessary to compel compliance with a final judgment of the court.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed by Simplicio Alinsonorin against Andrea Salud and the Hon. Mateo M. Canonoy, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, 14th Judicial District, to annul the latter’s order of January 12, 1960 in Civil Case No. R-5682, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

On August 11, 1958, respondent Salud commenced Civil Case No. R-5682 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against her husband, petitioner Alinsonorin, for separation of conjugal properties and for the return of her paraphernal properties. Alinsonorin denied the material averments of the complaint and further alleged that, inasmuch as the parties were very old and unable to personally administer their properties, he, as administrator of the conjugal partnership, had named their grandson, Julian Suaring, to administer their lands and collect the fruits thereof, with the obligation of turning over the same to them; that his wife had been receiving her share of the fruits.

After due trial, the respondent judge rendered judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Declaring the first three parcels described in par. 2 of the petition as the paraphernal properties of the petitioner with right to the immediate possession of the same, and ordering the defendant or his attorney-in-fact to deliver the same immediately to her;

2. Declaring the remaining five parcels described in par. 3 of the petition as the conjugal properties of the spouses, and maintaining the husband as the administrator thereof;

3. Ordering the said defendant to pay to the petitioner twenty pesos monthly as her liquidated share of the produce of the conjugal properties, and exempting her from rendering any report on the income of her paraphernal properties.

No costs and damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsequently, upon discovering that petitioner had sold the conjugal properties to their grandson, Julian Suaring, for P3,000.00, respondent Salud filed an action against them for the annulment of the sale.

Meanwhile, as petitioner failed to pay the monthly allowance of P20.00 as required in the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. R-5682 — which had become final — Salud filed a motion therein to declare petitioner in contempt of court. During the hearing thereon, petitioner explained to the court that his failure to pay the allowance was due to the fact that he had already sold the conjugal properties to Julian Suaring and that the proceeds of the sale were used to defray the family expenses.

Resolving the motion for contempt, the respondent judge, on January 12, 1960, issued the following order subject of the present petition.

"The court hereby resolves:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In the interim the civil case involving the validity or nullity of the supposed sale of the conjugal properties in favor of Julian Suaring is pending, to order the defendant to deposit the proceeds of the said sale in the Court within ten (10) days from receipt hereof; and to pay out of the said deposit the monthly pension of the plaintiff herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

The only issue now before Us is whether or not respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue the order of January 12, 1960.

Petitioner argues that the respondent judge’s order requiring him to deposit in court the proceeds of the alleged sale in favor of Suaring and to pay respondent Salud the monthly pension of P20.00 from the proceeds aforesaid is a modification or alteration of the judgment of July 8, 1959 which had become final; that it is also a limitation or diminution of his powers of administration over the properties without authority or jurisdiction; and that in issuing the order complained of, the respondent judge gave respondent Salud a relief not sought for in her motion for contempt of court.

All the above contentions are without merit.

As petitioner himself admits, the decision rendered in Civil Case No. R-5682 has long ago become executory. Thereunder, it was his obligation, inter alia, to pay the monthly sum of P20.00 to his wife "as her liquidated share of the produce of the conjugal properties." Neither can petitioner deny the right, nay, the duty of the respondent judge to see to it that the aforesaid judgment of the court is faithfully carried out. By selling the conjugal properties to his grandson, petitioner obviously intended to avoid complying with his duty under said judgment. It was clearly, therefore, within the authority of the respondent judge first, to order petitioner to deposit in court what the latter claims to have been the proceeds of the alleged sale and to require him to use them in paying the amount due to his wife. That this relief was granted by the respondent judge in resolving a motion for contempt filed by petitioner’s wife is of no moment, it being clear that such relief is another means of compelling petitioner to comply with the final judgment referred to heretofore.

WHEREFORE, the petition under consideration is dismissed, with the result that the writ prayed for is denied.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24022 March 3, 1965 - ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS ASSO., INC., ET AL. v. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20509 March 24, 1965 - LESME BAQUILOD, ET AL. v. MARCELO M. BOBADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18351 March 26, 1965 - CHOY KING TEE v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18753 March 26, 1965 - VICENTE B. TEOTICO v. ANA DEL VAL CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-18799 March 26, 1965 - JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18359 March 26, 1965 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19582 March 26, 1965 - UY CHING HO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16773 March 30, 1965 - UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-19694 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: LEONIDAS S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20013 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: DALMACIO CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 205 March 31, 1965 - CANDIDO SAN LUIS v. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13719 March 31, 1965 - FILEMON PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14526 March 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14678 March 31, 1965 - JUAN SERRANO v. FEDERICO MIAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16441 March 31, 1965 - ALFREDO BOLLOZOS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16744 March 31, 1965 - SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN v. MATEO M. CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17798 March 31, 1965 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18725 March 31, 1965 - JOSE MA. LEDESMA v. FELIX VILLASEÑOR

  • G.R. No. L-18761 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMIRIL ASMAWIL

  • G.R. No. L-19142 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRECIO LUMAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-19482 March 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO D. UY v. JOSE R. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19868 March 31, 1965 - IGMIDIO CANOVAS v. BATANGAS TRANS. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20003-05 March 31, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAVINO SISICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20093 March 31, 1965 - CAPT. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, ET AL. v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20151 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: LEE NG LE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20305 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: ANG TEE YEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20455 March 31, 1965 - NAZARIO CATUIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20504 March 31, 1965 - NATIONAL DEV. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20558 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: MELITON O. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 - WONG WOO YIU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21597 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO C. MONTE

  • G.R. No. L-22354 March 31, 1965 - KWOK KAM LIEN, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-22537 March 31, 1965 - EUSEBIO TAÑALA v. MARIANO LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22779 March 31, 1965 - HADJI LOMONTOD MACASUNDIG v. DIRUGUNGUN MACALANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23721 March 31, 1965 - R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24191 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. ADOLFO

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.